The Hawaiian gazette., 1887-12-27
Supreme COurt.-At Chambers.
BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JUDD.
MONDAY, Dec. 18th.

MONDAY, Dec. 18th.
Bankruptcy of Man Hang & Co. A petit
ton of the assignee, Theo. F. Lansing. was
filed on the Sth for allowance of final ac-
counts and discharge.
The assignee is allowed to change the
claim of Tai Chez from S105 to $50, claimant
admitting the correction. The Court orders
that the accounts be allowed and that upon
the assignee filing the receips of the credit
ors for the first and final dividend, be be
discharged and his bond cancelled.
Bishop & Co. VS.. Pacific Navigation Co.
Bill of foreclosure of a mortgage, for an in
junction, etc.
Counsel for plaintiffs files original note of
defendant to plaintiffs, dated October 26,
1887, due on demand for S6,652 II, at 10 per
cent. interest per annum, and order dated
Dec. 6, 1887. of defendant to pay plaintiffs
proceeds sale of copra; and asks that his
motion filed on the 18th, that bill be taken as
confessed, be allowed.
A decree is made by the Court in which
judgment Is gwen in favor of plaintiffs for
$3.50, amount of note and interest, for de-
PENDANT to deliver up the draft in question,
proceeds of sale of copra, 81 ,164 II, and same
TO be credited upon amount of judgment,
and finally for costs.
f. NJ. Hatch for plaintiffs. No appearance
for or by defendant.
JULY TERM, 16o7-IN BANCO.
THE MADRAS CASE.
John Chapman ct al. VS. the Hlws.iIan
Government.
The opinion of the Court. b., Jrsiic, Pre-
ton, was filed yesterday, on e&rrpsiune a.,
counsel for defendant 10 several parts Of the
charge of the presiding Justice, McCuIly, at
the April term, and also to several instruc-
tons asked and given for the plaintiffs. and
also to the refusal of the Judge to give Ger
tain instructions asked for by the defendant.
And they also excepted TO the verdict Of the
jury as being contrary TO the law and the
evidence, and gave notice of 4 motion for a
new trial.
The motion for new trial was refused
pro f9rJaa, and exceptions duly taken.
The exceptions were argued At the July
term. The Court stated then hos the mat
ter appeared to them. and suggested that
counsel endeavor to settle the matter, but it
appears that no satisfactory arrangement
could be arrived at.
The opinion of the Court is that the JUS
tees instruction to the jury that the plain
tIffs were entitled to recover interest upon
the damages awarded. was incorrect, and
that the defendant would be entitled 10 a
new trial on that ground alone, but on this
ground the Court would not order 4 new
trial unless plaintiffs declined TO reduce the
damages.
Another and more serious reason why the
Court thinks the verdict cannot stand is that
the action is one of trespass ri ct asmis (by
force and arms and the plaintiffs claim
$50, $50 80 with interest for damages result
ing to them for injury done to their property
by the defendant.
The only property of the plaintiffs was the
steamship Madras, and there does not ap-
pear to the Court to be evidence of injury
done by defendant or its agents to such prop
erty; and therefore the plaintiffs can only
obtain nominal damages upon the complaint
and evidence as it stands.
It does not appear TO the Court that any of
the evidence, except that as to forcible pre-
vention of the entrance of the vessel into
port, Was relevant 10 the matter in DISPUTE
on the pleadings.
The plaintiffs have not set out their claim
for special damages, even if it had been an
action on the case for consequential damages
for the alleged wrong or breach Of duty of
the defendant. IN manner to enable eVi
denee of such damages to go 10 "a Jury.
Under these circumstances the opinion of
the Court IS that the verdict is contrary to
law and must be set aside, consequently